Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

I wish Gloria Allred all the best with her lawsuit - I hope she wins. But as long as gay people expect to get their civil rights through the courts, rather than the legisilative process, we will ultimately be doomed.

The success of all these hateful marriage proposals is in part a reaction by people in the middle who feel this is being forced on them by the courts. We will never convince the people on the far right to go along with gay marriage. But there is a vast moderate middle who, with a little convicing, can be won over to our side.

While I think we are entitled to full and equal marriage, on a purely strategic political level Civil Unions would be a more realistic near term goal. Many polls have shown that even people who supported gay marriage bans agreed that they would support Civil Unions.

Sarah Palin is already planning her path to the White House in 2012 on a platform of a US constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. That is a scary prospect considering the dismal outcome for gay marriage in this election.

Logged

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

Just curious, if desegregation was put to popular vote, would it have passed? If the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were put to popular vote, would they have passed?

Civil rights issues have routinely been decided by the courts, rather than popular vote.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Right now, I feel like personally torching every church in this country to the ground.

I am sick to death of my life being governed by mythology.

What we need to do, Tim, is hit them where it hurts- their pocketbooks. I think the time is right to pass legislation to stop churches from being tax exempt. It would mean huge cash flow for the government and reinforce the separation between church and state. Why should religious organizations be allowed to avoid paying taxes when everything else gets taxed?

Just curious, if desegregation was put to popular vote, would it have passed? If the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were put to popular vote, would they have passed?

Civil rights issues have routinely been decided by the courts, rather than popular vote.

Exactly! That's why it's so screwed that Prop 8 was even allowed. I can tell you for a fact that if segregation had been put to popular vote way back when, at least in many Southern states, it would have been a long time, if ever, that desegregation occurred.

What we need to do, Tim, is hit them where it hurts- their pocketbooks. I think the time is right to pass legislation to stop churches from being tax exempt. It would mean huge cash flow for the government and reinforce the separation between church and state. Why should religious organizations be allowed to avoid paying taxes when everything else gets taxed?

That's also what needs to happen. When churches or other religious organizations start funding things that are political in nature, like Prop. 8, they should lose their tax exempt status. They act like a private for-profit company or individual when it comes to funding these things but still want to be treated like a church. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways, you know, separation of church and state and all.

What we need to do, Tim, is hit them where it hurts- their pocketbooks. I think the time is right to pass legislation to stop churches from being tax exempt. It would mean huge cash flow for the government and reinforce the separation between church and state. Why should religious organizations be allowed to avoid paying taxes when everything else gets taxed?

You got my vote

Logged

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

Just curious, if desegregation was put to popular vote, would it have passed? If the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were put to popular vote, would they have passed?

Civil rights issues have routinely been decided by the courts, rather than popular vote.

Unfortunately, the composition of the courts has completely changed since the sixties. We now have a decidedly conservative court. The only viable path for us, in modern times, is via the legislative process. In a perfect world the courts would decide in our favor and that would be the end of it. But do you think that that will happen? I don't.

« Last Edit: November 05, 2008, 03:18:35 PM by bmancanfly »

Logged

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

Both Obama and Biden said in public they were against gay marriage.That really pissed me off because the democratic party "use" to be our supportive party.I voted for Obama/Biden but actually would NOT have been that upset if they would have lost, simply because of their stand on this issue. I felt it was a copout-sellout to stay on the "conservative right" political side to get votes.

The day will come when gay marriage is law of the land, but I expect it will onlycome after every other civilized country recognized gay marriage first.

The USA is typically far behind the rest of the civilized world, and at some pointthat will hurt and run against the grain. It will greatly hamper our competitive ability.

But until then, we need to take a page out of the African American civil rights play book andcome out and fight. Looks like no one is just going to "grant" us this right while we sitback waiting.

A month ago I posted how surprised I was that the "NO on 8" campaign had made no attempt to reach those of us in the rural areas of N. California. ( Well This isn't Good....(California Edition) . I live in Red Bluff population 26,000 and the county seat of Tehama County. For the past 6 weeks we've been flooded with "Yes on 8" commercials. 2,3,4 times/night on every channel. You couldn't miss them. I did not see 1 "No on 8" commercial. The "No on 8" people had more money in their coffers than the "Yes" people did yet they made no attempt to reach the millions of us who live outside the big urban areas.

Take a look at this Election Results Map and check out all the green area. That's the part of California that voted "Yes" (52% of the vote.). The 'urban' vote (including Mono County ) was 48%. In my county (Tehema) the "Yes" vote was 73%. The "No" vote: 27%

If you're serious about changing the current attitudes of the voters you need to reach out more. Or you can wait for the next generation of voters to come forward who will undoubtedly be more understanding.

ps....As I recall during the 'veep' debates the candidates were asked about gay marriage. Both Biden and Palen said they could 'tolerate' same sex unions but not marriage. You will not see "marriage" brought up in the 1st term of Obama's Presidency....certainly not like Clinton brought up the issue of gays in the military and had to settle for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It wasn't the time or the place and look what we got.....a bad piece of legislation that's been on the book for over 15 years.

A month ago I posted how surprised I was that the "NO on 8" campaign had made no attempt to reach those of us in the rural areas of N. California. ( Well This isn't Good....(California Edition) . I live in Red Bluff population 26,000 and the county seat of Tehama County. For the past 6 weeks we've been flooded with "Yes on 8" commercials. 2,3,4 times/night on every channel. You couldn't miss them. I did not see 1 "No on 8" commercial. The "No on 8" people had more money in their coffers than the "Yes" people did yet they made no attempt to reach the millions of us who live outside the big urban areas.

Take a look at this Election Results Map and check out all the green area. That's the part of California that voted "Yes" (52% of the vote.). The 'urban' vote (including Mono County ) was 48%. In my county (Tehema) the "Yes" vote was 73%. The "No" vote: 27%

If you're serious about changing the current attitudes of the voters you need to reach out more. Or you can wait for the next generation of voters to come forward who will undoubtedly be more understanding.

Actually, the funding of the No campaign was lagging for most of the time until the last week.

And the Yes ads started at least one week before the No ads.

But I agree with you that the No campaign didn't do a good job. I offered them a relatively large donation, under the condition that they would show gay couples in their ads. They turned it down. So I made a smaller donation.

I saw the No ads on TV all the time in the Bay area, but they didn't show any gay couples in them, not even single gay people. Just parents, politicians, or just words. Very upsetting !

However they are not the only ones to blame by far. The Yes campaign spread nothing but lies. I would say they were "swiftboating" . It's the nicest way to describe what they did. IMO, the media shares a large part of the responsibility for not screening those lying ads and airing them.

And of course, we should never vote on civil rights issue by a simple majority.

Sarah Palin is already planning her path to the White House in 2012 on a platform of a US constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. That is a scary prospect considering the dismal outcome for gay marriage in this election.

Don't worry about Palin. She is going back to her state. She is history.

Both Obama and Biden said in public they were against gay marriage.That really pissed me off because the democratic party "use" to be our supportive party.I voted for Obama/Biden but actually would NOT have been that upset if they would have lost, simply because of their stand on this issue. I felt it was a copout-sellout to stay on the "conservative right" political side to get votes.

I agree with you completely. I voted for Obama also, but only because there wasn't anyone better to vote.

Quote

The day will come when gay marriage is law of the land, but I expect it will onlycome after every other civilized country recognized gay marriage first.

It was the law of the land in California until today :-(

Quote

But until then, we need to take a page out of the African American civil rights play book andcome out and fight. Looks like no one is just going to "grant" us this right while we sitback waiting.

We need to move this to a purely civil rights issue.

Well, the mostly republican California supreme court tried to grant us these rights, but apparently the voters are way further to the right of them.

I agree with you completely. I voted for Obama also, but only because there wasn't anyone better to vote.

It was the law of the land in California until today :-(

Well, the mostly republican California supreme court tried to grant us these rights, but apparently the voters are way further to the right of them.

I think most of the voters that saw Prop 8 on the ballot actually thought that voting yes, meant what it didn't mean, so they all voted yes, when they should have voted no if this is not the case, then, there were more right-wing-religious fanatics that just HATED Gays that voted YES, than we thought ............no?

« Last Edit: November 05, 2008, 07:24:15 PM by denb45 »

Logged

"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Only through the courts, can we gain true rights equality, because Congress cannot change the Constitution. What we need, is someone with deep pockets, to sue over one of these propositions and use the argument of what exactly, does All men are born with inalienable rights... and the pursuit of happiness? The Constitution has no classes of citizens, because that is what our founders intended and if they meant to have different classes, surely they could have mentioned it. But there was not even a word for gay back then and the issue of gay marriage is a result of the past few decades.

You cannot legislate rights, that already exist in our founding documents. Only the courts, can assert and insure our equal rights, no matter who you are.

I think most of the voters that saw Prop 8 on the ballot actually thought that voting yes, meant what it didn't mean, so they all voted yes, when they should have voted no if this is not the case, then, there were more right-wing-religious fanatics that just HATED Gays that voted YES, than we thought ............no?

No that wasn't the case.It was very clear. IT said right on the ballot Prop 8 will ELIMINATE the RIGHT for same-sex couples to marry. There were even Yes on Prop8 demonstrators outside polling places just outside the 100ft mark.

Right now, there are Community Gatherings happening tonight all over California (including Modesto and Fresno ...wow) I'm heading off now

Only through the courts, can we gain true rights equality, because Congress cannot change the Constitution. Yes they can. They've done it 27 times. What we need, is someone with deep pockets, to sue over one of these propositions and.......Do all the work for us??? Or we can talk to our straight neighbors and convince 2% to change their minds. Seems like that would be much easier (and cheaper).You cannot legislate rights, that already exist in our founding documents. Only the courts, can assert and insure our equal rights, no matter who you are.

Taking the Gay Marriage issue to THIS Supreme Court would be a absolute disaster. Maybe after Obama gets a few appointments - but not until then.

Logged

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

No that wasn't the case.It was very clear. IT said right on the ballot Prop 8 will ELIMINATE the RIGHT for same-sex couples to marry. There were even Yes on Prop8 demonstrators outside polling places just outside the 100ft mark.

Right now, there are Community Gatherings happening tonight all over California (including Modesto and Fresno ...wow) I'm heading off now

Hey sharkdiver your making me homesick I grew up in Oakland, Fremont, Hayward, but, I have family in Stockton, Modesto, Sacramento, Tracy, Albuquerque is so damm Isolated, this place is in the middle of no-where ( miles away form ANYTHING ) Denver is 390 miles to the North, and Phoenix is 419 miles to the Southwest and there is NOTHING in between and I mean NOTHING, and I don't even count Santa Fe as being a City..................

« Last Edit: November 05, 2008, 08:14:34 PM by denb45 »

Logged

"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Bman, Congress still cannot change the constitution, they can only pass a proposed amendment that would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. My whole point is we already have equal rights and none of the amendments have changed that fact. I know this will not happen tomorrow, but I am trying to get people to see that this is an issue that affects us all.

Today was the first time in my life that I have been embarrassed to be from the great state of California! I can not believe that Prop 8 has passed in the year 2008. I spent election night at Madonna's concert which was full of love and tons of support for Obama. There were tons of gay couples in the audience and it was nice to see them be able to be affectionate in public in a safe place. To know that they no longer have the right to marry, should they want to, makes me incredibly sad. I have heard that the Yes on Prop 8 supporters spent $70 million dollars on their campaign. Can you imagine what good could have been done with that kind of money? Instead they chose to spend it to spew intolerance. Heaven help us all!

I certainly hope the last remaining precincts turn the tide, but it doesn't look good now. This means that an awful lot of Californians pulled the lever for Obama and for the ban (sigh). Florida and Arizona have also adopted bans and Arkansas has voted to ban the adoption of children by gay couples. As happy as I am about the Obama victory, this night is certainly bittersweet.

Today, the Cities of Los Angeles and San Jose joined San Francisco in the lawsuit which the YES on 8 is calling "frivolous". California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger apologized on ABC News for not giving this measure enough support as he was mostly supporting Prop 11 after 6 failures to pass.

There was also some discussion on whether or not the 18,000 couples who married since June will remain married or if their marriages will be annulled. That is not yet clear. This is a good time to point out, the cost of a marriage license in San Francisco County is $89.95 which is a pretty fair chunk of change for a county to turn away. Have the best dayMichael

But I agree with you that the No campaign didn't do a good job. I offered them a relatively large donation, under the condition that they would show gay couples in their ads. They turned it down. So I made a smaller donation.

I saw the No ads on TV all the time in the Bay area, but they didn't show any gay couples in them, not even single gay people. Just parents, politicians, or just words. Very upsetting !

To me, it is far more upsetting that you viewed the conditions tied to the size of your donation as more important then the issue at hand.

I respect your point of wanting there to be real depictions of the people who would benefit from the proposal, but I think you lost sight of the real goal.

Modified: I think this is the flipside of the apathy issue we have seen as an obstacle in the gay community in mobilizing support to defeat Prop 8.

Americans should get a better lesson in how laws work. This ban can be turned around as unconstitutional. Laws are made to protect it's citizens not take their rights away.I am sure this will not be lost on a president who knows the effects of Jim Crow.If this was the case then our president would still have to get of the sidewalk when a white person walks by.What makes this election so special is now any disenfranchised group can see that under the right conditions they too can have a major voice in Democracy in America.The question is will it take 40 more years to paint the White House lavender? I don't think so!J

Logged

"You shut your mouthhow can you sayI go about things the wrong wayI am human and I need to be lovedjust like everybody else does"The Smiths

... We now have a decidedly conservative court. The only viable path for us, in modern times, is via the legislative process. In a perfect world the courts would decide in our favor and that would be the end of it....

I think that we have to use every avenue available. For example, were it not for the US Supreme Court, sex between gay people would still be a crime in Texas. The legislative branch may currently be more friendly, but I don't see enough of a friendly majority to pass significant legislation. Still, if we don't keep trying, we'll simply be accepting our current status as 2nd-class citizens.

I share much of the frustration and anger that's been voiced in this thread. The hostility, apathy, and ignorance displayed toward gay people infuriates me -- not only by the general public as voiced in this referendum, but especially by religious organizations. The use of referendum to deny rights and privileges makes me sick, and I can only imagine people vote for this stuff to make them feel better about themselves by putting other people down.

Regards,

Henry

Logged

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

I think that we have to use every avenue available. For example, were it not for the US Supreme Court, sex between gay people would still be a crime in Texas. The legislative branch may currently be more friendly, but I don't see enough of a friendly majority to pass significant legislation. Still, if we don't keep trying, we'll simply be accepting our current status as 2nd-class citizens.

I share much of the frustration and anger that's been voiced in this thread. The hostility, apathy, and ignorance displayed toward gay people infuriates me -- not only by the general public as voiced in this referendum, but especially by religious organizations. The use of referendum to deny rights and privileges makes me sick, and I can only imagine people vote for this stuff to make them feel better about themselves by putting other people down.

Regards,

Henry

I agree with you buckmark.

However, I think we are headed for a great setback if we create a circumstance where the issue of gay marriage is taken to this US Supreme Court. We will definitely lose. The far right is gleefully waiting for us to step into that trap. Once the US court rules against us, and they will, the game is over - period. The only way to overturn that ruling (short of them overturning themselves) is through a national constitutional amendment which will require a national super majority. We will not see a national super majority in favor of gay marriage in our lifetime. Maybe some day but not any time soon.

Equal gay marriage never really existed in CA anyway. It didn't include SSI benefits, immigration benefits, federal tax benefits etc., etc. so it really was a state civil union with statewide equality to marriage. Calling it marriage was, somewhat, of a misnomer. If we had sought state wide legalization of civil unions equal to marriage on the statewide level (which is really what existed anyway before Prop 8 ) we certainly could have peeled off 2% of the support for Prop 8 from the moderates in the middle.

Several years back there was a big debate in the gay community as to whether to pursue civil unions or outright marriage equality. I think, politically, we have alienated a lot of potential allies going down the gay marriage route, and have suffered substantial setbacks because of it. Calling it civil union with the same benefits, on the statewide level, would be equivalent to what gay marriage in CA was anyway. And would garner enough support from the moderate middle to beat back any challenge from the far right. Once enough states have legalized civil unions, and the 18-29 voting demographic (who favor us) starts to replace the 65+ demographic (who don't favor us) , and Obama gets a few Supreme Court picks we can take on the issue of national marriage equality. MLK was very shrewd, to his credit, about how, when, and where he chose his battles. We should too.

It would be nice, and morally correct, if a court could instantaneously bestow marriage rights on us. But the current climate is not at all favorable for that. Pursuing that course could be potentially disastrous. We need to make allies not enemies.

« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 10:20:33 AM by bmancanfly »

Logged

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

However, I think we are headed for a great setback if we create a circumstance where the issue of gay marriage is taken to this US Supreme Court. We will definitely lose. The far right is gleefully waiting for us to step into that trap. Once the US court rules against us, and they will, the game is over - period. The only way to overturn that ruling (short of them overturning themselves) is through a national constitutional amendment which will require a national super majority. We will not see a national super majority in favor of gay marriage in our lifetime. Maybe some day but not any time soon.

Equal gay marriage never really existed in CA anyway. It didn't include SSI benefits, immigration benefits, federal tax benefits etc., etc. so it really was a state civil union with statewide equality to marriage. Calling it marriage was, somewhat, of a misnomer. If we had sought state wide legalization of civil unions equal to marriage on the statewide level (which is really what existed anyway before Prop 8 ) we certainly could have peeled off 2% of the support for Prop 8 from the moderates in the middle.

Several years back there was a big debate in the gay community as to whether to pursue civil unions or outright marriage equality. I think, politically, we have alienated a lot of potential allies going down the gay marriage route, and have suffered substantial setbacks because of it. Calling it civil union with the same benefits, on the statewide level, would be equivalent to what gay marriage in CA was anyway. And would garner enough support from the moderate middle to beat back any challenge from the far right. Once enough states have legalized civil unions, and the 18-29 voting demographic (who favor us) starts to replace the 65+ demographic (who don't favor us) , and Obama gets a few Supreme Court picks we can take on the issue of national marriage equality. MLK was very shrewd, to his credit, about how, when, and where he chose his battles. We should too.

It would be nice, and morally correct, if a court could instantaneously bestow marriage rights on us. But the current climate is not at all favorable for that. Pursuing that course could be potentially disastrous. We need to make allies not enemies.

I agree with everything you have said here.

Maybe these defeats will mobilize more gay people to be more politically active. I know a lot of gay people I talked to in Los Angeles didn't think Prop 8 would actually pass until the week before the election and then they scrambled. This election has made me more vigilant about keeping up with gay rights issues and doing what I can to help.

Right now, I feel like personally torching every church in this country to the ground.

I am sick to death of my life being governed by mythology.

This statement is just way offbeat...

Instead of working with people for change... statements like this just Infuse hate...

Thank God this is why we have the judicial system... it takes time... nothing happens overnight

Everyone forgets homosexuality is an minority...

How long has it taken to get from the Civil Rights movement from Martin Luther King... to Now? An election in which an African American has been Elected to become our 44th president...It was not overnight and it took many sacrifices by all...not just black, white, yellow, red, brown ...etc... it took many people making sacrifices

and most of these unjust treatments of others just because of their skin color where HELPED by people whose moral convictions would not let this continue... and it was through the Churches of this country

But I agree with you that the No campaign didn't do a good job. I offered them a relatively large donation, under the condition that they would show gay couples in their ads. They turned it down. So I made a smaller donation.

I saw the No ads on TV all the time in the Bay area, but they didn't show any gay couples in them, not even single gay people. Just parents, politicians, or just words. Very upsetting !

The advertising paid for by donations to the NO on 8 committee was not geared to the gay community because, the gay community is assumed to vote NO on 8 We, the gay community are not the target audience.

Look at the NEW car dealers on Van Ness Ave. They will budget $1000.00 per car in advertising dollars. It does not take a rocket scientist to know, those car dealers and not advertising to the family who just bought a new car, advertising is geared to reach a NEW audience, people who have not decided on a new car yet. Simple rule of marketing.

On election day, my friend Walter left San Francisco as a volunteer to go on the streets and talk to the voters on behalf of the NO on 8 committee for all of us. His group of volunteers was sent to Berkeley (the home of the free speech movement). Those good hearted, family oriented, church going people had already been won over by the YES on 8 committee by the ministers, the preachers, and the god fearing people at church.

A great deal of money funding the YES group was donated from those churches like The Church of Latter Day Saints, people who give the first 10% of each and every paycheck to the church before they pay the rent or feed their family not from the collection plates.

Madbrain, please don't feel like an ass because the NO on 8 campaign advertising did not meet your personal approval, I am sure the committee was grateful for your donation. It is up to the courts now Have the best dayMichael

...Once the US court rules against us, and they will, the game is over - period. The only way to overturn that ruling (short of them overturning themselves) is through a national constitutional amendment which will require a national super majority...

I agree that there is a time and a place to pursue (and not pursue) issues via the judicial system. And I'm not advocating that the issue of gay marriage is necessarily taken to the US Supreme Court, at least at the current time. Only that in a broader sense, the judicial system is not an option that should be ruled out. Timing is important.

Just as an example, the ruling against Texas sodomy laws (I think in 2000 or 2002) is an instance where the court did overturn themselves. It's not unheard of, but it does take a generation (or two or three). I believe the US Supreme Court did uphold Georgia's sodomy laws in the 1980s. Not to mention the time gap between Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education.

You make a good point that what is currently being pursued as "gay marriage" at the state level isn't really the equivalent of marriage, as it doesn't include many of the legal rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage like Social Security, Immigration, Federal Income Tax, etc. The general public is obviously hostile to the idea of gay marriage, so re-casting the issue as civil unions might be a more palatable tactic.

Regards,

Henry

Logged

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

Obviously we need more naked men in the advertising. Hairy bears and nimble Czech twinks.

How about a Gay President of the United States it wouldn't matter if it's a Man or a Woman...........it could happen, in maybe 40 to 50 yrs from now? maybe even sooner?...................no? Why are (us LGBT's) hated so much? before this can happen, the hatred needs to stop and when we as a society can agree to stop the hatred, only then, we can heel and move on....

« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 12:51:11 PM by denb45 »

Logged

"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Obviously we need more naked men in the advertising. Hairy bears and nimble Czech twinks.

Hey Phylatio,

I remember a company in Chicago called "Friends Forever" which sold life insurance policies belonging to people living with HIV to investors. In their POZ or A&U ad, "Friends Forever" used a picture of two men, who had a better life because of the viatical market, who in real life were models. The models sued "Friends Forever" because the ad implied they had HIV.

Don't know the outcome of the case because the Grand Jury also had a problem with "Friends Forever" who became nobody's friend and disapeared off the face of the earth. We must be more careful using men in advertising. Have the best dayMichael

How about a Gay President of the United States it wouldn't matter if it's a Man or a Woman...........it could happen, in maybe 40 to 50 yrs from now? maybe even sooner?...................no?

I don't remember if it was my High School Civics teacher or my college Political Science Professor but one of them said, "We will not see an Afro-American man or a woman as President of the United States in our lifetime". He was proven wrong and if it was the college Professor, what we didn't see was him winning the Governor seat in California on the Green Party ticket. I didn't vote for him. About 40 or 50 years? It's not likely, I'll be around to see that one but, I remember the first Gay Mayor of Laguna Beach Have the best dayMichael

Right now, I feel like personally torching every church in this country to the ground.

I am sick to death of my life being governed by mythology.

This statement is just way offbeat...

Instead of working with people for change... statements like this just Infuse hate...

Thank God this is why we have the judicial system... it takes time... nothing happens overnight

Everyone forgets homosexuality is an minority...

How long has it taken to get from the Civil Rights movement from Martin Luther King... to Now? An election in which an African American has been Elected to become our 44th president...It was not overnight and it took many sacrifices by all...not just black, white, yellow, red, brown ...etc... it took many people making sacrifices

and most of these unjust treatments of others just because of their skin color where HELPED by people whose moral convictions would not let this continue... and it was through the Churches of this country

I stand by my statement - every word. That's how I feel toward them right now, and I won't apologize for saying so. Believe me: I've never forgotten for a second that being gay makes me a minority. How could I? I've been reminded of it every day of my life, most often from the god bunch.

To me, it is far more upsetting that you viewed the conditions tied to the size of your donation as more important then the issue at hand.

I respect your point of wanting there to be real depictions of the people who would benefit from the proposal, but I think you lost sight of the real goal.

Modified: I think this is the flipside of the apathy issue we have seen as an obstacle in the gay community in mobilizing support to defeat Prop 8.

I didn't see your original unmodified response.

I was very passionate about the issue, and I still am.

I thought the No campaign was doing a poor job all along, and I told them so in my emails telling them to show gay people. I was not about to waste a lot of money that I might actually need, only to see them continue to employ their losing strategy, and lose. The donation I ended up making was still significant.

Americans should get a better lesson in how laws work. This ban can be turned around as unconstitutional.

The Prop 8 ban is a California state constitutional amendment, just like many of the other state constitutional same-sex marriage bans. IMO, the only way it can be ruled unconstitutional is if it conflicts with the US constitution . This would have to go to the US supreme court.

Quote

The question is will it take 40 more years to paint the White House lavender? I don't think so!

It will not. In 2000, Prop 22 - a same-sex marriage ban put into state law, won by 62%In 2008, Prop 8 won by 52%.

There is some hope that within the next 10 years enough bigoted oldies will die, and this can be overturned.

My original unmodified post is everything that appears before the Modified notation. I didn't change anything in those lines in case you aren't sure.

I honestly don't get:

Quote

I was not about to waste a lot of money that I might actually need, only to see them continue to employ their losing strategy, and lose.

as changing anything regarding your original statement and my concerns about it.

I think if you were prepared to make a donation of one size when you made your request to them, then that would have stayed the same regardless of their answer unless you valued your view of how the issue should be presented as more important then the winning against the Ballot itself.

If you don't get that, then we are just not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, but I reiterate my modified point in the last post that I think this represents the flip side of the same coin in getting the gay community to get behind issues that benefit them.

It's like saying, "I will give to AIDS prevention efforts...but only if you all agree to get new license plates for your cars."

Uh ?

A better comparison would be : imagine AIDS prevention efforts that didn't target gay people, which are the biggest affected group. Wouldn't you want to try to make them change too ? And how much money would you give to them ?

The fact is that No on 8 ran a closeted campaign. I think they could have done a whole lot better and perhaps won in the polls, if they had appealed to the voters by showing some of the same-sex couples, you know, real human beings, whose marriage status is now in limbo.

That's a disagreement I had with the No campaign. I still donated to them because I cared about the issue, and I still do. I just wish they had run their campaign differently.

From what I read and heard, the "NO" campaign was very poorly conducted. Hollywood came through at the very last minute, AFTER all the inflammatory ads and canvassing of poor minority religious neighborhoods.

It was arrogance of the part of the gay power players in California that this measure would fail.

And while I shall refrain from lumping all Christians into the "Cult of the Zombie God" category, I will state that the Mormon Church has risen from a cult (which includes a talking salamander - go ahead, look it up) to a real danger to us. To us, gay people, and to the US, the nation as it is perceived globally.

I reaffirm that this issue shall be decided by the courts, and not the court of public opinion.

As it was initially.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

A better comparison would be : imagine AIDS prevention efforts that didn't target gay people, which are the biggest affected group.

I'm Sorry, Epidemiology reports in California and probably the rest of the country show, the highest risk for new infections of HIV to be:1. monogamously married women, over 40, with no drug usage claimed2. Hispanic men and women3. Afro-American men4. Gay men

This report is available through the Department of Health in any county and the trending has not varied for several years. Gay men are not the biggest affected group and haven't been for quite some time Have the best dayMichael (former Commissioner on the Sonoma county Commission on AIDS)

Her $100,000 donation to No on 8 came with strings as well : that it would go towards airing that spot.

I have never seen it air anywhere. I am guessing $100,000 doesn't buy too much airtime. Maybe it did air once somewhere, and I didn't catch it.

For the most part, No on 8 aired the other ads that were not showing any gay people.

It doesn't cover the cost of production, TV time is one of the most expensive advertising mediums. But the spots aired did not show gay people because gay people were not the target audience, gay people were expected to vote No on 8, it was our neighbors and others who needed to be convinced Prop 8 was about Human Rights and Equality. Have the best dayMichael